THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF PSEUDOPONTIA. 9 



finteniife lack distinct clubs ; from Psciiddjitoitia to many of these the 

 gap is scarcely greater than from such an almost unclubbed form to the 

 ■\vell-clubbed, as, for example, that represented by our Argynnids. The 

 presence or want of a club on the antennae is, in fact, a very relative 

 character, and the name " Ehopalocera " for the butterflies is conse- 

 quently inexact. With regard to the structure of the antennfe, i.r., the 

 structure and relative proportions of the single joints, and to the 

 small number of these, PsciidojKmtia is unquestionably a butterfly. 



Although the wing-neuration of Pscudojiontia is a very peculiar and 

 abnormal one, we can without difficulty refer it to the Khopaloceran 

 type, and it may best be compared with that represented by some 

 Pieridids as Plotz 2, and Schatz ^, and recently Mr. Grotc*^ have 

 pointed out. . It may be insisted upon, for example, that the pre- 

 costal vein (" vein I ") on the secondaries, is a typically Rhopalo- 

 ceran character, and Prof. Chr. Aurivillius ^, that well-known entomo- 

 logist who has especially dealt with the African Ehopalocera, remarks : 

 " Die Priicostalrippe der Hinterfliigel ist an und fiir sich hinreichend 

 mn der beweisen, dass wir es mit einem Tagfalter der thun haben." 



We have, indeed, no ground to consider Fscudopontia a moth ; it 

 is a butterfly, although an aberrant one. It belongs — in spite of its 

 unclubbed antennte — to the same systematic group as the well-clubbed 

 and several more or less indistinctly clubbed or almost unclubbed 

 forms, which constitute the group called " Ehopalocera." 



We may now consider the question of the position of I'Kri((h)})n)itia, 

 in the Ehopalocera. It is evident, as I have pointed out in my book, 

 that if this genus can be at all incorporated with any of the generally 

 acknowledged families, there can, considering the fully developed 

 forelegs of the Pscudnpnntia, be the question only of two families, 

 viz., the Papilionidae and the Picrididac. I have in my book given 

 full reasons for its not being a Papilionid. Fseudojinntia must, there- 

 fore, either be considered a representative of a separate family or 

 be incorporated with the Picrididac. 



At first sight, the strange wing-neuration and the peculiar form of 

 the antenna? and the palpi seem to be in favour of the former alterna- 

 tive. Since, however, the pattern of .the neuration of Psciidapcnttia 

 can be very well compared with that of some true Pieridids, the 

 former being only an extreme modification of the latter, since even 

 other families contain forms with strongly clubbed as well as with 

 almost unclubbed or at least very indistinctly clubbed antennas, and 

 the structure of the antennir agrees with that of the Pieridids, since, 

 further, in another family, r/:., the Pdjdliniiidac, several species are to 

 be found with aj)parently two-jointed palpi — as in Pscudojiontia — and 

 thus this anomaly seems to be of comparatively little taxonomic value, 

 and, finally, since the structure of the basal-fieck of the palpi most 

 closely resembles that of some of the lower Pieridids, we shall, perhaps, do 



'•i C. Plotz, " I'xciKhipoiil'ui cdldhiiricd, n. gen. et ii. sp.," Stctt. Knt. Zeit., xxxi., 

 1K70, p. 848. 



■^ Schatz, "Die Familien und Gattungen der Tagfalter, systematisch und 

 analytisch hcarbeitet," Fiirth, lS8o-lS',)'2, p. (io. 



4 A. E. Grote, " Specializations of the Lepidopterous wing ; the Pieri- 

 Nymphalidffi," I'roc. Anwr. Pliilns. So:., vol. xxxvii., 1898, pp. 40-41. lilvin, 

 " The Position of I'miudnjioutia ((imiojihlchia),''^ Kiitom. lice, x., IH\)H, pp. '2l:5-'21.'>. 



5 Chr. Aurivillius, " Peitrilge zur Kcnntniss der Insektenfauna von Kanierun, 

 2, Tagfalter, 4." Entom. Tidsln:, Stockholm, IG, 1895, p. 257. 



